199

Chapter VII

THE ALL STATE PEOPLES MOVEMENT AND THE INDIAN STATES COMMITTEE

The Princes of India thus continued in their protected self serving style of governing their States. This deceptive lull was quite suddenly shattered by the individualistic and out of the ordinary stand taken by the

Nizam of Hyderabad who demanded the restitution of the province of Berar that Lord Dalhousie had taken over in 1853. The revenues from this rich cotton growing region had been used to support the contingent force maintained by Hyderabad, under the provisions of Wellesley Subsidiary

Alliance, for use by the British. Mir Osman Ali’s shrewdly worded letter of September 25, 1925 now challenged the very basis of British paramountcy.' The imperial rulers responded with aclarity. In a letter dated March 27, 1926, Lord Reading rejected outright the demand that the

Nizam made. In fact the Viceroy’s reply took the form of an uncompromising statement on the absolute supremacy of the British 200

Government over the Princely States and the inviolability of the Paramount

Power.^ The correspondence between Mir Osman Ali, Nizam of

Hyderabad and Lord Reading, Viceroy of India, was published in the

Gazette of India Extraordinary on April 5, 1926. In the same month viceroyalty changed hands. For the princes, the circumstances in which

Irwin succeeded Reading were similar to those in which Minto had succeeded Curzon.^ They hoped that the new Viceroy would, like Minto, prove to be more sympathetic to their interests than his predecessor.

During the post Montford Reforms years the Princes individually and through the Chamber of Princes sought to pin the British to a definition of

’Paramountcy’. The Government of India, while perusing a policy of offering expedient, even illusory ’protection’ to the Princely states refused to codify the political practice the Princes so earnestly sought. That the

British followed this policy, despite a fairly strong opinion against it, reiterated the ’imperialist’ nature of the British objective in India. Irwin however felt that there was need to have an informal dialogue with the

Princes (i.e. the Standing Committee of the Chamber of Princes) of an

’exploratory nature’,'* through a sub-committee of his Executive Council, 201 to understand their minds before the Statutory Commission that was to evaluate the ten years since the 1917 Reforms'* arrived in India.

Lord Birkenhead who had succeeded Lord Peel as Secretary of State at the India Office was quite skeptical about the viceroy’s suggestion. "It is always a danger in discussion with the Princes that even the most informal remarks may be brought up again subsequently as ’pledges’, and in a matter of this importance to the Princes we shall have to be especially cautious on this point."* He finally agreed to Irwin’s scheme provided nothing that might be construed as a commitment was said by the

Government of India. Thus Thompson was commissioned by Irwin to prepare a note that would serve as a basis for discussions in the subcommittee of his Council. In preparing his note Thomspon was especially mindful of the conclusions of the Committee that had been appointed earlier by Lord Reading to investigate the dissatisfaction of the

Princes about the economic and fiscal policies of the Government.’ He began with an appraisal of princely apprehensions, "The Princes are afraid of the future... They are the last congenital autocrats in the world.

Democracy has swept away others before tlieir eyes. The reflection that it 202 may end in dictatorship brings them no balm. Such a dictatorship would mean their downfall. With the examples of Ireland and Egypt before them, they discount our assurances of piotection and they are terrified lest out of deference to clamour or fetish of the people’s will we should let ail the powers of the Government of India pass to a responsible Government composed of the type dominant amongst politicians, a type they dislike and distrust."* Thompson was able to suggest subtly two ways out of this problem. The first that in relationship with the Indian States the Viceroy should act in his capacity as the Crown Representative and independent of his status as Governor-General-in-Council, as head of the Government of

India. This was exactly what Malconi Hailey had advocated in 1921, a move that Abhyankar had denounced as ’sinister’. The second was the establishment of a ’union’ legislature based on a customs union, an idea borrowed from Bismark’s ’Zollverine’. Irwin endorsed Thomson’s view as he had no wish to see the Indian Princely States vanish from the face of the sub-continent, by forcing compulsory constitutional reforms in them.

The debate that followed Thompson’s recommendations saw a division of opinion. Blackett the Finance Member and Sir Alexander 203

Muddiman, the Home Member were against the idea of protecting "the states in this manner from pressure of public opinion. Muddiman also thought that there was a tendency to think only in terms of the princes and asked whether their subjects would welcome the states conducting their relations only with the Viceroy.^ The idea of the Union Legislature on the other hand received a unanimous note. While Thompson suggested a unitary legislature made up of elected representatives from British India and nominated representatives from the Princely States, Thompson believed the rulers would be pleased for as he recorded in his note'° that although the growth of democracy and education would ’bring the despot down’, the scheme would ’break his fall and tend to keep him on his throne with powers equal in extent to those of the autonomous "provincial governments of the future, and with his ceremonial position safeguarded permanently."

At the end of the debate that ensued in the subcommittee it was however accepted that British Indian representatives would be likely to take exception to their association with representatives from the Indian Princely States who had been nominated by the Princes and not by popular vote. The committee therefore considered that "something in the shape of a 204 federation" would be the only satisfactory solution." It was also accepted that it was imperative for the success of tlie scheme to start modestly, but the details of the form of association envisaged were not discussed. The

India Office recognised that to ask the Statutory Commission to report on matters pertaining to the Indian States would amount to stirring up a hornet’s nest, the consequences of which might force the British to codify political practice to their detriment. Birkenhead in fact did not even want a mention of the term ’federation’ as he felt that this would probably ’raise larger issues and frighten the princes’.'- He suggested that an inquiry into the question of the Indian States should be disposed of first, so that conclusions therefrom would be available to the Statutory Commission as a basis of its separate investigations. Birkenhead’s approval of a States’

Committee was therefore dependent upon Irwin impressing these considerations upon the Chairman-designate of the Indian States Committee,

Sir Harcourt Butler. Realising that Butler was likely to be ’out of touch’ with the States, the Secretary of State instructed Irwin to inform the former

Foreign Secretary that there could be no weakening of the paramountcy question as expressed in Reading’s letter to the Nizam. It was quite clear 205 therefore that the subsequent paramountcy recommendations of the Indian

States Committee had been effectively prejudged before the Committee began its deliberations.'^

Thus expediency had dictated a two-fold plan through which to steer the British imperialism in tact. The first, as has been just mentioned was to give an ’official’ cum ’we-are-partners’ type illusion to the already nervous and subservient, though occasionally belligerent, Princes. The second was the policy of non-interference that had been initiated by Minto and elaborated upon in the subsequent years. Non-interference was heralded by the Princes unanimously and by the large part of the bureaucracy. By 1927 however there were a large number of political agents stationed in the Princely States, to carry out the mandate of the

Government of India and India Office, who had become vocal in their criticism and dissatisfaction with ’non-interference’. In January 1927 Major

A.S. Meek, Political Agent at Mahikanta in Western India forwarded a note to the Political Department with the remarkable title, "British India is advancing along the lines of Evolution: The Indian States are on the road to Revolution."*" It was Meek’s contention that while British India had 206 progressed towards self-government through education and a raised standard of living, this phenomenon was absent in almost all the Princely States.

The policy of non-interference had made this divide more pronounced together with the fact that the general attitude towards the states had become quite frivolous. That is to say that though administration in the Princely

States was abominable in most cases, British officers posted there aware of the circumstances, condoned the saine in ’light hearted good humour what common judgement would condemn as intolerable. Meek said that the peculiar relationship embodied in ’paramountcy’ that existed between the

Indian States and the British Paramountcy had divested the rulers of the responsibility for the safety and good government within their states and made them obsessively concerned with a strange phenomenon they called their ’izzat’ (reputation, glory, status all rolled into one).

Irwin considered Meek’s note to be very ’interesting and suggestive’, though he did not subscribe to the suggestion of a reversal of the policy of non-interference. He did however call for an informal conference of

Political Officers at Simla in July 1927 to understand their views and appraise them of the mind of the cenlral government. Irwin found that 207 most of the officers were in a critical inood.‘‘' Lieutenant Colonel R.H.

Chenevix-Trench, who had spent just a year as Revenue & Police Member of the Nizam’s Council in Hyderabad, condemned ’non-interference’ as it led to oppression and general misgovernment. He said that the policy was

’as short sighted as it was unworthy of the Imperial Government.'^

Lieutenant Colonel RJC Burke, at the time Resident in Baroda, supported

Chenevix-Trench’s view that the instructions in Butler’s Political Manual left an officer with ’little initiative’ and seemed to imply that ’he should content himself by sitting in his Residency and listening to bazaar or club gossip.'^ The AGG Central India E.H. Kealy, felt that though ’non­ interference ought to be abandoned, it would undoubtedly be resisted by the

Princes who would resent interference with the exercise of their sovereign rights. Furthermore it was conceivable that any attempt at changing the present laissez-faire would ’close the remaining gaps in their (Princes’) rank, especially since the establishment of the Chamber of Princes had given the Princes’ a sense of unity and opportunities for greater communication. In support of this view L.W. Reynolds, the AGG from

Rajputana said that the inherent loopholes made it impossible to effectively 208 use the commission of enquiry procedures that had been devised in October

1920 to investigate charges against the princes. He said, "Before recourse is had to this remedy, the state of misrule must be so bad as to leave in no doubt what the verdict of the commission, if appointed will be. For obviously a verdict favourable to the defendant prince would be disastrous.

Consequently the probability is that the State concerned will be brought to the verge of ruin and the subjects to a great misery before the remedy is applied.'^

Thus we find the very issues that Abhyankar had argued about and tried to mobilise public support for, were the ones of which British were acutely aware and the princes mortally afraid. Neither, in separate calculations and for reasons of personal expediency, were going to allow the dynamite that Abhyankar sought to place under their edifices, to blast their individual apple carts. Nationalists in British India had made their own assessments and calculations and for the most part decided to lend no definite support to Abhyankar’s fledgling movement but merely to pay lip service whenever they found it useful. Only the Servants of India Society lent unstinting and steady support. Now he was faced with the appointment 209 of the Indian States Committee which made amply clear that its terms of reference did not include discussions, even a mention, of the subjects of the

Princely States.

The members of the Indian States Committee under the Chairmanship of Sir Harcourt Butler arrived in India early 1928. The only other two members were Sidney Peel, a financier and Professor W.S. Holdsworth, an eminent jurist. The members of the Committee toured several states and collected oral evidence from witnesses in India and Britain. It also issued a questionnaire based upon its terms of reference.'^ The terms of reference were specifically restricted (1) To report upon the relationship between the Paramount Power and the States with particular reference to the rights and obligations arising out of a) treaties, engagements and sanads and b) usage, sufferance and other causes; and (2) To enquire into the financial and economic relations between British India and the States and to make any recommendations that the committee considered desirable or necessary for their more satisfactory adjustments.

When Irwin had announced the appointment of the Indian States

Committee, the Standing committee of tiie Chamber of Princes had 210 established a special organisation which had engaged the Right

Honrourable, Sir Leslie F. Scott, K.C., M.P. together with Mr. Stuart

Bevan, K.C., M.P., Mr. Wilfrid A Grcone, K.C., Mr. Valentine Holmes and Mr. Donald Sommervele to prepare a Joint Opinion on their behalf.

The Chamber of Princes appointed Kailash Narian Haksar, Dr. Rushbrook

Williams and K.M. Panikkar to oversee the efforts of Sir Leslie Scott. The larger states however continued to remain aloof and chose to submit their own cases individually before the committee.'” Some of the smaller states — Rampur, Junagad and a few Kathiawad states followed suit. Scott had prepared five volumes of evidence of encroachment on the rights of the states since the Mutiny. His Joint Opinion, he divided into three parts.

The first was an interpretation of Paramountcy that established that the states were fully independent in matters concerning their internal administration. The second part concerned proposals for the Political

Department. In fact, Scott advocated a virtual abolition of the Department, to be replaced by an "Indian States Council", members of which (and the

Viceroy) were to solemnly swear to protect the interests and rights of the

State. The third part dealt with the relations between the states and British 211

India wherein Scott suggested a ’Union Council’ to discuss matters of common concern. Lord Irwin was cynical in his response to these proposals. He believed that Scott was not only misleading the Princes but also suffering from delusions of grandeur. "I am afraid that his trouble really is that he has convinced himself that his intervention at this juncture is one of the direct attempts of Providence to bring order into a disordered world and his critical faculty has suffered some obliteration under his enthusiasm.-' The Indian States Committee, that had been monopolised by Sir Leslie Scott on behalf of the Standing Committee, proceeded to dismantle Scotts contention.

Acting upon instructions, Butler and his colleagues declared: ’The relationship of the Paramount Power with the States is not merely a contractual relationship, resting on treaties made more than a century ago.

It is a living, growing relationship shaped by circumstances and policy, resting on a mixture of history, theory and modern fact.’ Moreover it is not true that the States were originally independent. ’Nearly all of them were subordinate or tributary to the Moghul Empire, the supremacy or the Sikh Kingdom and dependent upon them. Some were 212 rescued, others were created by the British. The Committee therefore concluded: ’Paramountcy must remain paramount; it must fulfill its obligations, defining or adapting itself according to the shifting necessities of the time and the progressive development of the States.’^- The Butler

Committee rejected the idea of the Indian Council though it suggested more frequent discussions between the Standing Committee and the Political

Department to reduce friction between the two. The Committee, however, put forward a new and novel theory of intervention. It stated that if a popular uprising occurred in a state that was not the outcome of a protest against the misgovernment of the ruler, but a popular demand for a change in the form of government, then the Paramount Power would be bound to take such measures as would satisfy the demand without eliminating the

Prince. The Political Department acquiesced.'’ Watson thought it

’unthinkable for many years to come’ that the government would be required to interfere in this manner provided the autocratic rule of the princes was ’tolerably just and efficient.’ Moreover, agitators who might stir up discontent could always be won over by a prudent ruler.^'* 213

The Committee also suggested that an expert body be appointed to inquire into reasonable claims of the States for a share in the government’s revenues accruing out of matters of common concern. Also that policies relating to excise and postal arrangements be decided by joint consultations.

Endorsing the opinion reached by Irwin’s executive in 1926 the Committee concluded that, "For the present it is a practical necessity to recognise the existence of two ... there is need for great caution in dealing with any question of federation at the present time so passionately are the princes as a whole attached to the maintenance in its entirety and unimpaired of their % individual sovereignty within their states.'"* As soon as the Butler

Committee presented its report in March 1929, the attention of the Princes was riveted upon its paramountcy recommendations that so horrified them.

To the princes the recommendations seemed like an open invitation to their political opponents to encourage agitation for change.'^

The problem of the Indian States had grown much more acute after the Montford Reforms. The establishment of the Princes Chamber and the repercussions of the introduction of responsible government in the British provinces had cast a shadow on the Princely States. As we have outlined 214 earlier subjects in several States, especially in Western had begun to organise themselves. The total clamp on freedom of expression and association within State boundaries necessitated these Parishads,

Mandals and Sabhas to hold meeting in British India. The Daxini Sansthan

Hitvardhat Sabha spearheaded by Abhyankar as early as 1920, under the auspices of the Servants of India, was one of the earliest such bodies to plead the cause of the States’ Subjects in a sustained manner. Often

Abhyankar found himself alone and criticism poured in from all quarters, yet he did not dilute his strident pastures. Replying to V.S. Srinivasa Sastri on 23rd May 1926,^’ he wrote, "I really appreciate your opinion in the

English columns of the Sansthani Swaraj.-*^ Bui I can state that my excuse is that I have lived and suffered under the autocratic rule of Indian Princes.

I know the black side so much that it is difficult for me to hold any other view. British Indian Politicians - like you living at a distance are brought in touch with the bright side of the Indian states and do not or cannot imagine the other side of the shield. However, don’t suppose for a moment, that I value any less the importance of peaceful and moderate langauge so far as these Princes are concerned. My policy has been as 215 expressed by the Australian Statesman - "Hit hard no matter even though you are required to apologise later." I shall however be obliged to you to be corrected from time to time. As I have been looking to you with some feeling of respect and estimation as did my Guru Gokhale.

In the case of the Indian states problems the greatest difficulty is that no one can get any lead or light from outside. The Indian states’ subjects and politicians therein are not at all - and British Indian Statesmen don’t want to worry about these matters. But when the moribund condition of the

Indian states is brought forward as an excuse for not granting a further installment of reforms is it not now necessary to think of the position of the

Indian states in the future development of British India earnestly?"

Rajputana Seva Sangh and other organisations worked towards gaining political rights, as also did organisations in individual states - the

Sangli State Peoples’ Conference, Bhor Political Conference,

Praja Parishad, Cutchi Praja Parishad, Peoples’

Conference, Jainjiria State Subjects Conference, State Peoples

Conference, Idar Praja Parishad among others. A distinct transformation was visible in the sessions of the States People Conferences that were being 21() held simultaneously with sessions of tin* Indian National Congress as years rolled on after the 1917 Declaration.-'^ The earliest efforts at forming an

All India Institution about 1917 were however unsuccessful as in retrospect one might say of the efforts of Mr. Mansukhlal Rajeevbhai Mehta of

Kathiawad. On the 5th March 1922, 26 prominent workers interested in the Indian States met at the Servants of India Society in Poona. Abhyankar and A.V. Patwardhan asked N.C. Kelkar, a prominent member of the

Servants of India Society as well as the Indian National Congress to open the meeting. Kelkar asked Mr. Shukla, barrister from Rajkot, to chair it.

The question of whether an All India States People Conference was needed was debated and the following were resolved:

1. An All India States People Conference be held in Bombay in

August/September 1923.

2. A provisional committee be set up for the purpose.

3. The job of defining the role and aims of the All India States People

Conference be entrusted to the conference. 217

4. N.C. Kelkar, S.S. Mehta, Popatlal Chudgar’” and J.R. Gharpure

were coopted Secretaries of the Provisional Committee that was also

entrusted to undertake propaganda work in several states.

Following the 1923 session, there appears to have been a lull in the activities of this body. The years between 1923 and 31st October 1926 were those that saw a total slide in the levels of administration in several states, Nabha, and Indore to name only a few. In October 1926 Dr.

Sumant Mehta, A.V. Patwardhan and L.R. Tairsee convened another meeting to discuss various aspects ol the organisation and published a manifesto. In it was stated that "The ideal of a Federated India, in which the British Provinces and the Indian States would unite on an equal footing of equality to form the great consolidated nation of India would in order to be achieved, presuppose a much greater degree of public consciousness and political advance in the States than has been the case so far, and it has been considered that the peoples of the Indian States must obtain political institutions and form governments calculated reasonably to place them on par with the rest of the federating India. 218

The organisation of a Conference will therefore, be devoted to make the Princes realise that their best friends are, after all, their people working in harmony with the rest of India. A conference is, therefore, necessary to see how far this or the like aim common to the whole of the Native States of India is attainable, and if attainable to devise ways and means and permanent organisations for the maintenance of the struggle for the betterment of the States and the people."

The impetus came however came when the Indian States Committee was announced and politicians in the Indian Princely States realised that the subjects were not within the purview of the terms of reference. Not to give up easily, these politicians sought a hearing of their plea by Sir Harcourt

Butler, the Chairman, who recorded in his report that, "In the course of our enquiry we were approached by persons and associations purporting to represent the subjects of Indian states. It was quite clear that our terms of reference did not cover an investigation of their alleged grievances and we decIined.to hear them, but we allowed them to put up written statements"^'

In fact in preparation of the arrival of Sir Harcourt Butler to India,

G.R. Abhyankar, Amritlal Thakkar, A.V. Patwardhan, Professor K.T. 219

Shah, Dr. Sumant Mehta, Manilal Kothari and Ramnarayan Chaudhary decided on the 1st April 1927 to convene a meeting on the 17th of that month with a view to 1) Formulate aims of political advance in the Indian

States as integral parts of the Indian nation. 2) To debate the question of whether a larger conference should be convened. 3) Prepare for, if so determined of a representation to be laid before the forthcoming

Constitutional Commission embodying the aim of political advance in the

Indian States. At the third meeting in May 1927 a manifesto to that effect was drafted by Abhyankar and unanimously accepted.T he prime movers of the popular agitation, in order to obtain constitutional guarantees and a democratic, responsible government in the Princely States, consistently maintained that their demand was for a change in the form of government "under the aegis of their rulers. As early as 1922 Abhyankar had said, "The princes have combined in their Princes’ Chamber for the protection of their rights, privilejies and prerogatives. They are protesting against the encroachment of the Political Department of the Government of

India and demanding freedom from many irksome restrictions. They are demanding representation in Imperial and International gatherings and 220 express a desire to participate in Imperial and All India Policies. While they lay claims at participation they are not willing to delegate or allow power within their states to devolve upon their subjects. All their dealings with the Government of India are in-camera, not ever made public, and never consult or even inform of the many commitments the princes make on their (of the subjects) behalf to (he Government of India. Press is muzzled and there is no freedom of association. Elementary civic rights depend on the whims of the ruler. Taxation and legislation is arbitrary.

State revenues are regarded as personal incomes. Education, sanitation,

medical relief, industrialisation and other nation building activities are starved while local self government is unknown."

Yet to Abhyankar a constitutional monarchy under the Indian Princes was distinctly preferable to benevolent despotism under alien rulers.

We find that after the April 1927 meeting, there was almost no

forward activity because of floods in Gujarat. It was not before the 20th

November of that year when the 4th Executive Committee^'* meeting was

called with G.B. Trivedi in Chair that things got moving again. Balwantray

Mehta of Rajasthan agreed during the course of this session to work full 221 time for the Conference. Five subcoiiiniittee were appointed to carry on propaganda and publicity to prepare the ground for the formal inauguration and launching of the All India States People Conference to be held at the

Servants of ^[ndia^^Society Office. Bomh ^ . The formal address of the

Conference office was Ashoka Building, Princes Street, Bombay. A vigourous agitation marked the success of the Conference in advance and this was primarily due to the incessant efforts of Manila! Kothari, G.R.

Abhyankar and Popatlal Chudgar. They held a number of political meetings in various Princely States - Kathiawad Agency, Idar, Jamnagar,

Bhavnagar among others. Govindlal Motilal was elected Chairman of the

Reception Committee with S.A. Brelvi, Editor Bombay Chronicle, and

G.B. Trivedi, ex MLC from Bombay as Vice-Presidents. While A.V.

Takkar and Balwantray Mehta of Servant’s of India Society, G.R.

Abhyankar, A.D. Sheth, Editor ’Santashtna’, Rangildas Kapadia of Baroda

Praja Mandal and Balkrishnalal Poddar, a merchant from Bombay were elected General Secretaries. Manikliil Trivedi of the Kathiawad Praja

Mandal was Treasurer. 222

Thus at 3.00 p.m. on Saturday, 17th December 1927 the All India

States People Conference (AISPC) was inaugurated by Diwan Bahadur

Ramachandra Rao of Ellore, who had been elected President of the

Conference. In all 15,000 delegates from Princely States and British India attended. Addressing this impressive gathering Ramachandra Rao declared

"I refuse to believe that there is anybody in the Indian States,

be he a prince or a peasant, who will not wholeheartedly

subscribe to these ideals and not do his best to realise them.

A large vision of Indian political destiny has permeated all

classes of people throughout India and on this main question

there is and there can be absolutely no difference between the

people of British India and the Indian States. A free, strong,

united, self governing and self supporting India is our aim

and., the All India Congress Committee (Nehru Committee)

has charged the working committee of the Congress to frame

a scheme in consultation with the various political parties in

the country. I sincerely hope that this committee and other

political organisations will not content themselves with 223

framing proposals relating only to British India leaving the

position of the Indian States in the new constitution undefined.

Ramachandra Rao severely criticized the Congress policy of non­ interference in the affairs of the Indian Stales. In the several speeches that followed Amritlal Thakkar, Jamnalal Bajaj and Manaklal Kothari, all

Congressmen and Gandhians, urged the AISPC to introduce a programme to promote ’Khaddar’, temperence and the uplift of backward classes. The

Conference urged the Congress to lend them constructive help, Manaklal

Kothari (Kathiawad), B.S. Pathik (Udaipur), Ramnarayan Chaudhary

(Ajmer), Dr. Gundappa (S. India), Chottalal Sutaria (Gujarath), Balwantray

Mehta (Rajasthan) and Ramachandra Rao (Ellore) were deputed to meet

Congress leaders and secure their support. Abhyankar and Popatlal

Chudgar were to conduct publicity work. They demanded the use of manpower from the Indian States in tlie agenda to be followed for the indianisation of the British army. The States’ leaders perceived that this would not only open substantial avenues of employment but simultaneously upgrade the States’ Forces. Spurred on by Abhyankar they further demanded that all subjects of Princely India should be deemed eligible for 224 the King’s Commission and for admission to the Imperial Military Academy

(now the Indian Military Academy) on the same terms as British Indian

Subjects. The Conference demanded a review and alterations of the fiscal and opium policies so that the interests of the subjects would be subserved.

Atiya Begaum demanded that the Princes declare their intention of giving the subjects the right to freedom of speech and press and the security of person and property, while D.V. Gokhale warned against doing anything that might alienate the subjects, "The rulers must realise" he said,

"that they exist to subserve the interest of the people or they would suffer the same fate as autocrats the world over."

Sharing the platform during this hallmark Conference were personalities like Sir Purshottamdas Thakurdas, Fenner Brockway, a prominent Labour M.P. who lent sterling support to the AISPC Delegation in London 1928-29, Shri Dhairyasheelrao Gaikwar, Sir Lallubhai Samaldas,

S.A. Brelvi, A.V. Thakkar, Laxmidas Tairsee, Sumant Mehta, Atiya

Begaum, D.V. Gokliale, Sir Jugmohandas Varjimandas, Seth Jamnalal

Bajaj, B.F. Bharucha and Motichand Kapadia. The conference ended at 9 p.m. on the I8th December and Rs.6,000 had been collected in 225

subscriptions and donations. Abhyankar drafted the formal 14 point

Resolution. Thus the first All India States People Conference brought to

the surface popular demands for responsible government and civil liberties

under the aegis of the Indian Rulers,^"' thus setting the tone of agitation for

popular rule in the Indian states.

The Resolution adopted at the first AISPC began by reiterating the

principle goal. It was resolved to 1) educate public opinion. 2) urged

rulers to a) establish representative institutions on an elective basis in the

sphere of local self government, legislation, taxation and general control of

administration, b) budget and revenue be submitted to popular vote c)

revenues of the states and personal expenditure of princes be separated and

submitted to popular vote d) establishment of an independent judiciary and judicial functions to be completely separated from executive functions and

e) the princes must cease interference. 3) that it was the inherent right of

the subjects to determine the form and character of government and bring

about necessary changes. 4) The speedy attainment of ’Sawraj’ for India as

a whole and that the States be brought into constant relations with British

India and people of the States be assigned a definite place and an effective 226 voice in all matters (of) common concern in any new constitution that may be devised for the whole of India. 5) That the plea that the Princes have treaty obligations to the British Crown wholly independent of the

Government of India for the time being has no foundation whatsoever and it is detrimental to the attainment of Swaraj. 6) That the Princes must publicly promulgate elementary rights of citizenship, right of association and meeting, free speech, press and security of person and property. 7)

Faith in self reliant efforts to ameliorate the condition of people and therefore to start organisations in the States to do constructive work of

’Khadi’, temperence, uplift of backward classes, establishment and reform of Village Panchayat and local self-government institutions. 8) Abolition of compulsory labour and slavery. 9) Abolition of the separate education that was being imparted to the Princes at the Rajkumar Colleges which were illconceived, illsuited and denationalised them. 10) The principle of intervention in the internal affairs was not based on any definite principles that it was not being exercised for the promotion and safeguard of the rights of the people, that principles of intervention should be defined, codified and published. 11) That the Expert Committee appointed by the Secretary of 227

State for India-in-Council at the request of the Indian Princes and without any reference to and representation of the subjects will seriously prejudice the right and liberties of the people and unduly increase their burdens, so that such a committee was unacceptable to the subjects. 12) That wanton expenditure caused by Princes staying away froin their states was unacceptable. 13) That the Executive Committee of the AISPC was authorised to secure cooperation of political organisations in British India and collaborate with them in devising a new Constitution for the whole of

India including the States.

Reactions to the formation of the All India States People Conference were quick to come by both in India and England. While the Indian Press was divided in their reception to the AISPC, the press in England was decidedly pro-Princes. This was primarily because until now none of the

States leaders or those of British India had ever addressed the English public on matters pertaining to the Indian States. The Princes on the other hand knew England and the Continent well and had years of a headstart in both overt and covert propaganda. As we have already noted the proceedings of the Simla Conference between the Viceroy and the Princes 228

in 1927 had been in camera. Soon after, in view of the imminent Indian

States Committee and consequent stepped up activities of States leaders a

delegation of the Princes went to London with a view to protecting their

own interests and creating a favourable public opinion to their cause. Thus

one newspaper in London was to write, "Anglo-Indian pundits like Lord

Sydenham, Lord Meston and Sir Michael O’Dwyer have suddenly conceived great affection for the Indian States and the perpetuation of their treaty rights." While another prominent daily noted that, "It has been suggested in the press that the Indian Princes are being used at the present juncture as a sort of a smoke screen for vitiating the judgement of the Royal

Commission on the subject of an Indian Constitution, it has also been stated

that the object of the Conference (at Simla) was to find a solution for

checking the democratic on rush in British India and that under the guise of safeguarding their existing status, rights and dignities Indian Princes are being advised and incited to oppose a grant of full constitutional freedom

to India and to retard India’s advance to Swaraj.

As you are aware Colonel Haksar and Dr. Rushbrook Williams left

for England immediately after the Simla Conference and received a good 229 deal of attention from the English press. They have issued a statement on behalf of the Princes that they are not opposed to the legitimate aspirations of India to become fully self governing but that the position and status of the Princes as guaranteed in the treaties be maintained." As if to further confirm the above, His Highness the Janisaheb of Nawanagar declared that the Princes supported aspirations in British India and did not want to interfere with it nor wanted any interference in the affairs of Princely

States.

Reacting to the propaganda launched by the Princes, and the tacit support from the British, Abhyankar reacted sharply. Referring to the

Imperial rulers as "British trustees" he said, "They are not anxious to advance the cause of national freedom in British India and still less for the promotion of constitutional reforms in the Indian states. For a long time

British statesmen have sought moral justification for British rule in India and have repeatedly asserted that in governing of 319 million people of

India, Great Britain is discharging a solemn trust. They have declared that

British policy in India is not in any sense dictated by British interests and that the welfare of India alone is the determining factor in the formulation 230 of their policy. They have even gone so far as to declare that the people of India and Great Britain are partners.'”'^

The Executive Committee held its second meeting on the 7th January

1928 to discuss means of raising funds, setting clear definitions and parameters of programmes to be undertaken. It was also resolved at the meeting that the AISPC wold work with the Congress subcommittee to prepare a Draft Constitution, if invited to do so. B.S. Pathak, Professor

K.T. Shah, P.L. Chudgar, Maneklal Mehta, Amritlal Sheth and G.R.

Abhyankar were coopted for this work.

The third Executive Committee stretched over two days - the 19th -

20th May of the same year. The Executive Committee recorded a criticism of the Butler Committee and its terms of reference that made no mention to either representation to the subjects of the Princely states nor reforms in them. The minutes of the meeting referred to the Butler

Committee as "prejudicial". The proposals formulated at the session of the

Chamber of Princes held in Bombay, the views that the Indian rulers expressed in the press both in India and abroad, and the Leslie Scott

Scheme, these the Executive Committee said amounted to the "derailment 231 of Swaraj." G.R. Abhyankar, Ramachandra Rao, and S.G. Vaze were deputed to study the Leslie Scott Scheme and prepare a report. The

Committee also authorised Abhyankar to work with D.V. Gundappa, N.C.

Kelkar, Manilal Kothari, and B.S. Pathiik to prepare a tentative scheme for the future government in the Indian States and their relations vis-a-vis the

Government of India.

It was only when it was established beyond doubt that the Butler

Committee was to carry out an in-camera inquiry in London with an utter disregard to the aspiration of the States’ subjects and the efforts of their leaders to gain a bonafide status and representations that the 4th Executive

Committee recorded that "in view of the impending changes in the status of the Indian States and the activities of some leading princes in connection with the work of the Butler Committee, it has become necessary to send a delegation to England to state our case before the British public." The deputation to England was to consist of Diwan Bahadur Ramachandra Rao, the President, G.R. Abhyankar, the general secretary, and Amritlal D.

Sheth, MLC, while Popatlal Chudgar who accompanied them did so at his 232 own expense. The Deputation was also atuhorised to lead evidence before the Butler Committee if invited.

In retrospect it is obvious that the States leaders were quite unaware of the pro-reforms and democratization lobby within bureaucracy in the

Government of India. It also speaks volumes of the fact that no matter how divergent and critical the views, the British always subserved imperial interests, never losing sight of their duty to and the dignity of the Crown.

At the same time, though, opportunity was afforded at all levels of hierarchy to air their views frankly and freely.

Perhaps the greatest single obstacle that the popular movements faced at the All India level was the total lack of support from the Indian National

Congress. Despite this we find that the leaders of the States plodded on

relentlessly educating the public both in India and abroad, trying to win

constructive support from the Congress as an organisation and congress

leaders in their individual capacities. While Gandhi was anxious to promote

the social upliftment programmes - eradication of untouchability and self

reliance through the spinning wheel - he was adamant about lending the

states support at a political level. Abhyankar, though he never became a 233 member of the Indian National Congress, understood the benefits that would accrue to the people of the states froin Gandhi’s social work programmes, and initiated them in . In this connection Abhyankar continued to correspond with the Mahatma. In a letter dated 8th February 1933,” written from the Yeravada Central Prison, Poona, Gandhi wrote, "My dear

Abhyankar, will you please go through this letter (a copy enclosed) and do whatever you can in connection with the money. Get hold of it or let it be sent to me, and do please advise me as to the best method of using part of it in connection with untouchables in Sangli." It appears that a lawyer Mr.

Chhapkhane of Sangli claimed to have been authorised by the Mahatma during his visit to Sangli to both collect funds and spend them for promoting the social work programmes. He seems to have sought to use these claims to be the Mahatma’s "representative" in Sangli and this inevitably led to unnecessary controversy and unpleasantness, much to

Gandhi’s chagrin. Once again the Mahatma still incaserated at Yeravada sought Abhyankar’s help in a letter dated 9th March 1933.^* "Here is a copy of my further correspondence with Sjt. Chhapkhane. I suggest your seeing him and fixing up whatever is possible. He is so definite about what 234 happened during my visit to Sangli that it is difficult to contradict him without unimpeachable evidence or to believe that he is guilty of saying what is not true. Sjt. Joshi will perhaps show my letter to you." It is quite possible that Abhyankar had hoped to bo able to convince Gandhi of lending political support for his movement in llie States, through the acceptance of

Congress programmes of Khadi and untouchability. Gandhi however belied

Abhyankar’s hope for he maintained (hat the fight was against British

Imperialism first and foremost. That opening up two fronts was not expedient for the Congress. Whether it was only a matter of expediency or whether the Congress did not wish to antagonise the strong and rich lobby of the Princes, who were natural allies of the British, many of whom donated to the Congress funds in the hope of buying support for their cause, and whose support the Congress undoubtedly needed to secure greater reforms to achieve a responsible and democratic government in the British provinces, is a question open to debate.

Perhaps then, the attitude to (he popular movement in the Indian

Princely States was, in the nascent years of this century, based on mutual

J expediency and use that the Indian National Congress and the Indian Princes had of each other. 235

Endnoles

1. "Save and except matters relating to foreign powers and policies, the Nizams of Hyderabad have been independent in the internal affairs of their State just as much as the British Government in British India. With the reservation mentioned by me, the two parties have on all occasions acted with complete freedom and independence in all inter-governmental questions that naturally arise from the time to time between neighbours. Now, the Berar question is not and cannot be covered by that reservation.... I cannot refrain (therefore) from questioning the use of the word "decision" in connection with the Berars. Outside foreign affairs, 1 have, as an Ally of the British Government, every justification to reserve to myself the right of looking upon a refusal given by His Majesty’s Government as a were rejection and not a ’decision’... I think it essential to invite Your Excellency’s attention to this aspect of the question as it raises a constitutional issue affecting the relations that subsist between that Government and the Nizams as Allies. The refusal to entertain an Ally’s claim or proposal stands on a different footing from a ’decision’... the rejection by His Majesty’s Government of my claim to the restoration of the Berars can only be a fact expressing its views but it cannot impose upon me or my House any obligation to treat the subject as closed or regard the claim as barred for all time..

(Source: House of Commons (Accounts & Papers) 1926. Volume 22, pp.445-9.) from Documents and Speeches on the Indian Princely States, Ed. Adrian Sever vol.II, B.R. Publishing Corporation, Delhi 110052, 1985.

2. "The sovereignty of the British Crown is supreme in India, and therefore no Ruler of an Indian State can justifiably claim to negotiate with the British Government on an equal footing."...... "The right of the British Government to intervene in the internal affairs of Indian States is anotlier instance of the consequences necessarily involved in the supremacy of the British Crown"... "It is the right and privilege of the Paramount power to decide on disputes that may arise between states, or between one of the States and itself, and even though a Court of Arbitration may be appointed in certain cases, its function is merely offer independent 236

advice to the Government of India, with whom the decision rests"......

(Source: House of Commons (Accounts and Papers) 1926, Volume 22, pp.460-2.) For full text see: Documents and Speeches on the Indian Princely States. Ed. Adrian Sever, vol.II, B.R. Publishing Corporation, Delhi 110052, 1985.

3. S.R. Ashton, British Policy towards the Indian States 1905-1935. Curzon Press, London, 1982, pp. 113.

4. Ibid.

5. "I think myself it is quite vital that we should seek to clear our minds of this problem in advance of the Statutory Commission. It must be faced sooner or later and failure to do so will inevitably breed uneasiness in the minds of the general body of the princes." (Source: Irwin to Birkenhead, 30th June 1926, Halifax Collection, No.2

6. Birkenhead to Irwin, 22nd July 1926, Ibid.

7. At the session of the Narendra Mandal in January 1926 the Princes had expressed dissatisfaction with the existing economic and fiscal relations between the Princely States and British India. The Maharaja of Bharatpur felt that this as primarily due to a lack of joint-deliberations between the two, in spite of the recommendations to this effect in the Montford Reforms (para 326). Lord Reading faced with a unanimous support of Bharatpur’s resolution in the Chamber was therefore obliged to appoint a Committee of his council consisting of Sir Basil Blackett, S.R. Das, C.A. Innes, B.N. Mitra and Thompson to investigate and report on this question. When the committee presented its report in June 1926 Reading had already left India. Irwin thus declared that the question and recommendations of the Committee would be decided by the Secretary of state in consultation with the Government of India. (Source: S.R. Ashton: British Policy towards the Indian States, 1905-1935: Curzon Press, London, 1985.)

8. Ibid. 237

9. Ibid.

10. Thompson note, 17th July 1926, GOI, FPD, No.302 - Political, 1926.

11. S.R. Ashton: British Policy towards the Indian States 1905-1935. Curzon Press, London, 1985, pp. 117.

12. Secretary of State to Viceroy, telegram, 13th November 1926, GOI, FFD, Secret-Internal Despatch, File 2764/1927, pts. 1 and 2, No. 1747/1927.

13. S.R. Ashton: British Policy towards the Indian States 1905-1935. Curzon Press, London, 1985.

14. Note by Major A.S. Meek, Political Agent, Mahikanta, 29 January 1927, GOI, FPD, No. 48 - Political (Secret) 1927.

15. S.R. Ashton: British Policy towards the Indian States 1905-1935. Curzon Press, London, 1985.

16. Proceedings of an informal conference of Political officers held at Simla, July 1927, opinion recorded by Lt. Col. .RH. Chenevix- Trench, GOI, FPD, No. 557 - Political (Secret), 1927.

17. Opinion recorded by Lt. Col. RJC Burke, Ibid. Source: S.R. Ashton: British Policy towards the Indian States 1905-1935. Curzon Press, London, 1985.

18. Source: Ibid., pp.90, 100-102.

19. Ed. Adrian Severs, Documents and Speeches on the Indian Princely States. Vol.II, B.R. Publishing Corporation, Delhi 110052, 1985.

20. The larger states who were not satisfied with Sir Leslie Scott’s joint opinion were Hyderabad, Mysore, Baroda and .

21. Irwin to Birkenhead, 9 August 1928, Halifax collection. No.4. Source: S.R. Ashton, British Policy Towards the INdian States - 1905-1939, Curzon Press, London, 1982.

22. Report of the Indian States Committee. Ibid. 238

23. S.R. Ashton, British Policy Towards the Indian States - 1905-1939, Curzon Press, London, 1982.

24. Watson’s undated note on ’the Position of the Government of India in supporting a Ruler against a demand of his subjects for a change in the methods of the State Government’, GOI, FPD, No.73 - Reforms, 1928, 1-4. Source: S.R. Ashton, British Policy Towards the Indian States - 1905-1939, Curzon Press, London, 1982.

25. Report of the Indian States Committee, para 67 & 68. Source: Ibid.

26. "For the princes it (recommendations of the Butler Committee) represented a complete repudiation of nine years prolonged, and often expensive labour’. It was estimated that the legal fees paid to Sir Leslie Scott for preparing the joint opinion was L100,000. Source: Ibid.

27. G.R. Abhyankar: Private collection, Nehru Memorial Museum & Library, Teen Murti, New Delh.

28. Abhyankar produced and edited a bilingual (English & Marathi) newspaper dedicated to cause of the subjects of the Princely States. The paper was printed, published and financed by Amritlal Sheth at the Janmabhoomi Press, Bombay and was called ’Sansthani Swaraj’.

29. Information pertaining to the formation of the All India States People Movement and its subsequent history is available variously at A) the India office 1) File No.54, L/P &5/13/931: Status of Indian States and their subjects, July 1925 - April 1945, 2) File No. 11, L/P&5/13/1659: Return to India of memorials and petitions addressed to the Secretary of State for India, July 1927 - February 1940. B) Nehru Memorial Museum & Library, GR Abhyankar Papers: Private Collection C) All India States People Conference literature.

30. Chudgar, Popatlal, Barrister, was a member of the Indian States People Delegation to England in 1929. Author of ’Indian Princes under British Protection’, London, Williams & Norgate Ltd., 1929, with a preface by Rt. Hon. Josiah C. Wedgwood, D.S.O., M.P. 239

31. Abhyankar had written to Lord Irwin seeking an interview with the members of the Indian States Committee during their tour of the Sangli State, but this was declined quoting ’outside the purview of the terms of reference’ as an excuse. Source: G.R. Abhyankar: Problems of Indian States, Aryabhushan Press, Poona, 1928.

32. Report of the Indian States Committee, 1928-29.

33. "The principle aim of such a conference of people of all Indian States should be to demand and secure that Indian States should be regarded as integral parts of a common Indian nation on par with... provinces of what is known as British India in all national matters and founded on the basic principles of responsibility in Government and representativeness in their governing institutions similar to that prevailing in British India, under the aegis of their rulers. Subject to this central idea, the position, powers and functions of the Indian Princes; the rights and obligations under treaties and other engagements of the States with the rest of India, and the rights and the privilege of citizenship in each such unit and the body politic of India must be left to be determined and regulated by appropriate institutions. Representations embodying these points may be addressed, under the authority of the Conference to the Statutory Commission and such other authorities as may be concerned with these problems. Source: G.R. Abhyankar: Problems of Indian States, Aryabhushan Press, Poona, 1928.

34. 29 members attended the 4th Executive Committee on 20.11.1927.

35. This is the opinion of Shri Jaynarayan Vyas of Rajasthan.

36. G.R. Abhyankar papers: Private Collection, Nehru Memorial Museum Library, New Delhi.

37. Ibid.

38. Ibid.